How Miuccia Prada's Miu Miu films tell stories of women through a fashion lens
Since 2011, Miuccia Prada, the patron saint of smart, messy women everywhere, has been using her Miu Miu line as a platform to commission short films by female filmmakers from around the world, including Janicza Bravo, Mati Diop and Haifaa Al-Mansour.
For Miuccia, the films, which sometimes air during her fashion shows, serve as a backdrop to her clothes, which have always explored the chaotic lives of mothers, sisters, rebels, poets and punks without ever trying to reconcile their contradictions.
That has made Miu Miu the darling of the fashion industry (Miuccia is also head designer of the Prada label), the rare fashion brand to experience explosive growth at a time when sales in general are slowing.
Last year, during Art Basel Paris, Miuccia decided it was time to bring all the films together, and she enlisted Polish artist Goshka Macuga to help.
The result was an immersive performance piece of sorts that involved a cast of 35 characters from the films, brought to life by 105 actors.
It was such an unexpected hit, with 11,000 people visiting the Paris show during its five-day run, that she and Macuga decided to re-create it recently or Frieze New York.
The new show, titled Tales & Tellers , is being staged in the Terminal Warehouse, the cavernous late-19th-century building on the Far West Side of Manhattan, latterly home to the Tunnel nightclub.
And it is an altogether darker take on the state of women than the Paris event was (still, wardrobe by Miu Miu).
Here, Miuccia and Macuga talk about the endeavour in a Zoom interview.
The conversation has been edited and condensed.
There hasn't been a Miu Miu show in New York in decades, but now there is. Sort of. Why this?
Miuccia: The clothes are an excuse to have the support of the company to create these projects where women are talking about themselves, which is very important.
In my work, I have always embraced the complexity of women, the complexity of our lives, how we can succeed in developing our abilities. So it's fundamental to know what women do, what they think, in different contexts.
Macuga: All these different stories represent different social problems for women in different countries.
Like, for example, the film which I feel very close to, Nightwalk by Małgorzata Szumowska, was filmed in Poland at a time when gender issues were really repressed by our government.
It was talking about this idea of liberation within a context that was not sympathetic to difference.
Read more: Are films indeed turning into a profitable side business for fashion companies?
That sounds like the current state of the US. Is that why you wanted to bring the show here?
Miuccia: Not just America. Conservatism is everywhere in Europe. We are facing these really great problems, and this moment is really scary.
So it's a very crucial argument – that everybody has the right to their voice.
Macuga: We are taking it to the American, or New York, street at night and trying to imagine how a woman exists within this context. It's more threatening, it's more surreal.
We're looking at the concept of inside and outside, the idea of individuals coming together in a group and being empowered. How all these individual voices can come together and make a big impact.
Is this also the way you raise your voice?
Miuccia: It's hard for me to talk about politics because I am a representative of luxury. That's a very privileged group of people, so to translate that in a real democratic way is not obvious.
So I try in my own way to be political, but I have to be very careful how I make it public.
Macuga: Artists can use language that allows certain narratives to still be present, but maybe present under the umbrella of a more coded language.
You're not directly addressing anything or making a statement, but you're creating the possibility for people to project certain ideas into it.
Miuccia: What I hope is that people who come to the show feel they can express themselves – their ideas, their problems, their weakness, their struggle.
We are basically saying that change or building relationships or empowerment happens on a human level, in the instantaneous relationships that we make with other people.
Why is that important now?
Macuga: Clearly we cannot take for granted certain positive things that happen for women in society. Governments change, politics change, and the situation of women changes with that.
Miuccia: Women's liberation is not concluded at all. Sometimes, it looks like we are going backward. There is still a lot of work to do.
Is that what you are trying to convey with clothes?
Miuccia: I try to make my contribution with the instrument I have. When you make clothes, you are suggesting possible ways of being.
I am fixated on the word 'useful'. I want to try to be useful. Basically, I have the Prada Foundation, our museum. I have the fashion lines. And this is something in between that seems the most promising because it is simple.
There's more excitement, less pressure, attached to it.
Read more: Elegance with edge: The quiet power of Miuccia Prada's life in fashion
What do you mean?
Miuccia: First, when we made these little movies, no one cared one bit. We showed them at the Venice Film Festival, in a very serious environment.
Then I wanted to do an exhibit at the Prada Foundation about feminism, but while curators are used to curating objects and art, there are no curators for ideas, so it's very difficult.
But adding the fashion environment attracts many more people and allows this idea to become much more popular, much more diffused.
Suddenly, with this, everybody immediately understood. It somehow accelerated the process, and we wanted to push that. This is one of the miracles of fashion. – ©2025 The New York Times Company
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malay Mail
32 minutes ago
- Malay Mail
New York jury to decide Sean ‘Diddy' Combs's future as sex trafficking case wraps
NEW YORK, June 30 — Jurors today will begin deliberating whether Sean 'Diddy' Combs parlayed his celebrity, wealth and business empire into a decades-long criminal ring that saw him force women into drug-fueled sexual performances with escorts. The dozen New Yorkers tasked with deciding the music mogul's future will began poring over thousands of phone, financial and other records along with the stories of 34 people who testified against him over seven painstaking, and at times excruciating, weeks. Combs, 55, faces upwards of life in prison if convicted on five federal charges that include racketeering, sex trafficking and transportation for purposes of prostitution. The producer and entrepreneuer, once one of the most powerful people in the music industry, denies the charges. On Friday his lawyer vied to skewer the credibility of his accusers—namely two women he dated for years—saying they were out for money, while rejecting any notion he led a criminal ring. But in their final argument, prosecutors tore into the defense, saying Combs's team had 'contorted the facts endlessly.' Prosecutor Maurene Comey told jurors that by the time Combs had committed his clearest-cut offenses, 'he was so far past the line he couldn't even see it.' 'In his mind he was untouchable,' she told the court. 'The defendant never thought that the women he abused would have the courage to speak out loud what he had done to them.' 'That ends in this courtroom,' she said. 'The defendant is not a god.' Defense attorney Marc Agnifilo scoffed at the picture painted by prosecutors of a violent, domineering man who fostered 'a climate of fear.' Combs is a 'self-made, successful Black entrepreneur' who had romantic relationships that were 'complicated' but consensual, Agnifilo said. Combs, 55, faces upwards of life in prison if convicted on five federal charges that include racketeering, sex trafficking and transportation for purposes of prostitution. — AFP pic Manipulation The defense has conceded that Combs at times beat his partners—but insist the domestic violence does not amount to the sex trafficking or racketeering he's charged with. Key to the prosecution's case were witnesses Casandra Ventura and a woman who testified under the pseudonym Jane, both of whom described abuse, threats and coercive sex in wrenching detail. In their closing arguments the defense dissected their accounts and at times even mocked them, insisting the women were adults making choices that were best for them. Speaking for the government on Friday, prosecutor Comey snapped back at that notion, saying the women were 'manipulated' into 'brazen' acts of sex trafficking. Ventura and Jane both said they experienced emotional manipulation and threats which made them feel obliged to meet Combs's sexual demands. Throughout the trial, jurors were shown voluminous phone records, including messages from both women that Agnifilo argued implied consent. But prosecutors said those messages do not paint the whole picture, and referenced testimony from a forensic psychologist who explained to jurors how victims become ensnared by abusers. Central to their case is the claim that Combs led a criminal enterprise of senior employees who 'existed to serve his needs' and enforced his power with offenses including forced labor, kidnapping, bribery, witness tampering and arson. But Agnifilo underscored that none of those individuals testified against Combs, nor were they named as co-conspirators. Many witnesses were given immunity orders so they could speak without fear of incriminating themselves. To convict Combs on racketeering, jurors must find that prosecutors showed beyond reasonable doubt that he agreed with people within his organization to commit at least two of the eight crimes forming the racketeering charge. On Monday, Judge Arun Subramanian will explain to them how apply the law to the evidence. Then, the eight men and four women will begin deliberating. They must reach a unanimous decision, reaching either a guilty or not guilty verdict on each count. — AFP
Malay Mail
2 days ago
- Malay Mail
‘Not a god': Arguments end in Combs trial ahead of deliberations
NEW YORK, June 28 — Sean 'Diddy' Combs's lawyer aimed yesterday to skewer the credibility of the music mogul's accusers, saying in closing arguments they were out for money while rejecting any notion he led a criminal ring. But in their rebuttal—the trial's final stage before jurors are tasked with deciding the verdict—prosecutors tore into the defense, saying Combs's team had 'contorted the facts endlessly.' Prosecutor Maurene Comey told jurors that by the time Combs—once among the most powerful people in music—had committed his clearest-cut offenses, 'he was so far past the line he couldn't even see it.' 'In his mind he was untouchable,' she told the court. 'The defendant never thought that the women he abused would have the courage to speak out loud what he had done to them.' 'That ends in this courtroom,' she said. 'The defendant is not a god.' For most of Friday's hearing defense attorney Marc Agnifilo picked apart, and even made light of, the testimony of women who were in long-term relationships with Combs, and who said he had coerced them into drug-fueled sex parties with paid escorts. Agnifilo scoffed at the picture painted by prosecutors of a violent, domineering man who used his employees, wealth and power to foster 'a climate of fear' that allowed him to act with impunity. Combs, 55, is a 'self-made, successful Black entrepreneur' who had romantic relationships that were 'complicated' but consensual, Agnifilo said. In his freewheeling, nearly four-hour-long argument, Agnifilo aimed to confuse the methodic narrative US attorney Christy Slavik provided one day prior. She had spent nearly five hours meticulously walking the jury through the charges and their legal basis, summarizing thousands of phone, financial, travel and audiovisual records along with nearly seven weeks of testimony from 34 witnesses. Central to their case is the claim that Combs led a criminal enterprise of senior employees—including his chief-of-staff and security guards—who 'existed to serve his needs.' But Agnifilo underscored that none of those individuals testified against Combs, nor were they named as co-conspirators. 'This is supposed to be simple,' the defense counsel told jurors. 'If you find that you're in the weeds of this great complexity, maybe it's because it just isn't there.' If convicted, Combs faces upwards of life in prison. 'Brazen' Casandra Ventura and a woman who testified under the pseudonym Jane described abuse, threats and coercive sex in excruciating detail. Combs's defense has conceded that domestic violence was a feature of the artist's relationships, but that his outbursts did not amount to sex trafficking. The defense insisted the women were consenting adults. Prosecutor Comey snapped back that they were being 'manipulated' into 'brazen' acts of sex trafficking, reiterating once again for jurors what the government says are the clearest-cut examples. Agnifilo pointed to Ventura's civil lawsuit against Combs in which she was granted US$20 million: 'If you had to pick a winner in this whole thing, it would be Cassie,' he said. Comey called that notion insulting: 'What was her prize? Black eyes? A gash in her head? Sex for days with a UTI?' The prosecutor also pointed to a violent episode between Combs and Jane, when she says she struck him in an argument before he brutally beat her, knocked her down in the shower, and then forced her into giving an escort oral sex. 'Jane may have started that fight, but he finished it with a vengeance,' Comey said, calling that incident the most obvious sex trafficking case and saying he had 'literally beaten her into submission.' Throughout the trial, jurors were shown voluminous phone records, including messages of affection and desire from both women—and Agnifilo emphasized the love and romance once again. Both prosecutors said taking those words literally, and in isolation, doesn't paint the whole picture. They also referenced testimony from a forensic psychologist who explained to jurors how victims become ensnared by abusers. 'The defense is throwing anything they can think of at the wall, hoping something will stick,' Comey said. On Monday, Judge Arun Subramanian will instruct jurors on how to apply the law to the evidence for their deliberations. Then, 12 New Yorkers will determine Combs's future. But Combs's legal worries may not end there, after three new sexual assault lawsuits were filed against him this week. One was by a woman who alleged the rapper's son, Justin, lured her from the southern state of Louisiana to Los Angeles where she was held captive, drugged and gang raped by three masked men in 2017. One of the men was allegedly Sean Combs. The other two cases were filed by men who accuse the rapper and his team of drugging and sexually assaulting them at parties in 2021 and 2023. — AFP
Malay Mail
3 days ago
- Malay Mail
Anna Wintour steps down as US Vogue editor after 37 years, continues global role
NEW YORK, June 27 — Magazine legend Anna Wintour stepped down as editor of US Vogue on Thursday after 37 years during which she was often hailed as the single most influential figure in the fashion world. Wintour, 75, was famous for making Vogue's front covers an authoritative statement on contemporary fashion, and for her total control over the glamorous pages inside. She will no longer run day-to-day editing of the fashion bible, but magazine group owner Conde Nast was quick to scotch suggestions of retirement. She will continue to hold senior roles at the group and remain Vogue's global editorial director. British-born Wintour came to public renown as the inspiration for 'The Devil Wears Prada,' a hit 2003 novel and 2006 movie, for which Meryl Streep earned an Oscar nomination for her role as tyrannical magazine editor Miranda Priestly. Wintour announced at a staff meeting in New York that US Vogue would seek a new head of editorial content. In remarks reported by the New York Times, she called it 'a 'pivotal decision' but stressed she would not be moving out of her office. 'I'll be turning all my attention to global leadership and working with our team of brilliant editors around the world.' Fashion flagship Wintour was made a British dame in 2017 and in February this year became a companion of honour—an elite recognition. At the ceremony in London in February, Wintour removed her trademark sunglasses to receive the award and said she had told King Charles III that she had no plans to stop working. Wintour, who was raised in the UK by a British father and an American mother, reigned over Vogue in the heyday of glossy magazines. US Vogue was a staid title when she took it over in 1988 and transformed it into a powerhouse that set trends—and often make or break designers, celebrities and brands. She took the title to a global audience, with huge budgets to spend on models, design, photographs and journalism funded by lavish advertisements and high subscription rates. Vogue remains fashion's flagship magazine but, like many print publications, has struggled to adapt to the digital era. Known to some as 'Nuclear Wintour' for her decisive leadership, such as axing work without discussion, she was also a fixture in the front row at catwalk shows with her unchanging bob haircut. A 2015 documentary 'The September Issue' about the monthly magazine featured her ice queen image and steely ambition but also revealed a warmer human side. Wintour has for many years also run the Met Gala, an extravagant Manhattan charity event that attracts an A-list of dressed-up stars from the worlds of fashion, film, politics and sports. She is a fanatical tennis player and fan—frequently appearing at Grand Slam finals—and a major fundraiser for Democrat politicians including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Joe Biden awarded her the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the top US honor, before leaving office in January. As Conde Nast's chief content officer, she will continue to oversee publications including Vogue, Wired, Vanity Fair, GQ, Conde Nast Traveler and Glamour. For many years, Wintour declined to comment on 'The Devil Wears Prada,' which was written by one of her former assistants, Lauren Weisberger. But when it was turned into a musical and opened in London in 2024, she told the BBC that it was 'for the audience and for the people I work with to decide if there are any similarities between me and Miranda Priestly.' Explaining her sunglasses, she told the outlet that 'they help me see and they help me not see. They help me be seen and not be seen. They are a prop, I would say.' — AFP
