Some films arrive with a look so specific they become part of culture. The Devil Wears Prada is one of them. Its world of polished offices, immaculate tailoring, and that now-iconic cerulean (not just blue) monologue became as visually recognizable as any line in the script. Returning to that world 20 years later meant walking a careful line of preserving what made the original timeless without letting the sequel feel like an imitation of its past.
The film reunites the original main cast - Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway, Emily Blunt and Stanley Tucci - with director David Frankel and writer Aline Brosh McKenna, and introduces an all-new runway of characters, including Kenneth Branagh, Simone Ashley, Justin Theroux, Lucy Liu, Patrick Brammall, Caleb Hearon, Helen J. Shen, Pauline Chalamet, B.J. Novak and Conrad Ricamora. The Devil Wears Prada 2 opened in theaters May 1st.
So how do you continue a project two decades later? For cinematographer Florian Ballhaus and Harbor colorist Joe Gawler, the goal was never nostalgia. Alongside the original director David Frankel, the challenge was continuity. The same characters, the same world, but 20 years later. Actors had changed. New York had changed. Fashion had changed. Technology had changed. But the emotional architecture of the film had to feel untouched.
Rather than chasing a retro look or overcorrecting toward something contemporary, they focused on subtle evolution: digital capture shaped by custom film emulation LUTs, careful preservation of fashion color, and a visual language that still felt grounded in reality and away from all the gloss. From candlelit Milan interiors, inspired by Barry Lyndon, to documentary-style fashion show sequences, shot inside live runway events, the work was about precision without preciousness. They had to know when to add grit and grain, and when to smooth everything out.
The endeavor also marked something rarer than a sequel: a creative partnership returning to the same story two decades later. Ballhaus and Gawler first collaborated on the original film, and have continued working together ever since. Coming back to The Devil Wears Prada was not just about revisiting the film, but about bringing 20 years of shared instinct and trust back into the same world.
Here, they share insight into the film’s visual approach.
What felt most important to preserve visually in returning to this world?
Florian Ballhaus: “Continuity was really the goal. We did not want it to feel like we were making a retro version of the first film, but we also did not want it to feel disconnected from where we left off. It had to feel like the same world, just 20 years later.”
Joe Gawler: “We talked about that very early. I remember asking Florian if we needed to be studying the first film frame by frame, and his answer was basically no, this is 20 years later. It is the same people, the same taste, the same emotional world.”
Florian Ballhaus: “A big part of that is that the original film was never designed to look overly of its time. We were not chasing the trendiest visual style of that moment. It was always meant to be subtle, something that would last. No heavy filtration, no overly bloomed highlights, nothing that would make people look back five years later and think, I cannot believe everything looked like that. That restraint is probably part of why it still feels timeless.
“So, with this film, we tried to do the same thing again. Things have evolved. The offices are bigger, the world is bigger, but the visual language needed to feel like a natural continuation, not a reinvention.”
Joe Gawler: “There is familiarity there, but not in a way that feels like we were trying to recreate something museum-style. Everything done on-set naturally carried that continuity through. The audience will always compare them, but the goal was not to match shots. It was to preserve the feeling.”
Did the sequel require a different visual approach, especially with how much technology has changed?
Florian Ballhaus: “When we made the first film, we were using what was state of the art camera equipment then, and we wanted to do the same thing now. We talked about shooting on film for a while because, obviously, we both love the texture of it. But it started to feel wrong for this story. This film should not look retro. It should feel like it exists now, using the best tools available now.”
Joe Gawler: “And the DI process is just completely different now. Twenty years ago, we were grading to shoot back out to film for release prints. Now we are working in Dolby Vision, HDR masters, laser projection. It is a totally different world.”
Florian Ballhaus: “So, we shot digitally and then added grain very carefully. That helped us keep some of that texture and softness, especially for skin and wardrobe. It also allowed us to have a little more depth without everything feeling too clinically sharp.
“One thing I kept thinking about from the original was how clean the Runway office needed to feel. Back then, we were actually trying to fight grain because of all the white walls. We shot slow stock inside because we wanted that creamy perfection. That stayed in my mind this time too. Even while adding grain, we were careful never to overdo it. That world still needed to feel polished.”
Joe Gawler: “The big difference [today] is control. The tools now give us so much more precision. Florian and I could make subtle fixes inside the grade that 20 years ago would have required sending things out to VFX. That freedom changes everything because it keeps you in the driver’s seat creatively.”
Fashion is the entire language of this world. How closely were cinematography and color working with costume design?
Joe Gawler: “Very early. We started during hair and makeup tests before production. I came to set, and alongside Harbor’s color scientist CJ Julian, we built a custom film emulation LUT based on the original film and how those colors needed to translate digitally.
“We had the main cast there for wardrobe tests, and they were very involved. Everyone was looking at the monitor, checking how fabrics and makeup were coming through, and we made adjustments in realtime. Certain colors needed to be protected. Cerulean blue was one of them. Red was another, especially for Miranda’s wardrobe. If those feel off, you notice it immediately.
“That early work is critical because once the LUT is in place, it defines the visual language of the film. It is not about reproducing colors exactly as they appear on-set. It is about translating them into the world of the movie while still preserving what matters.”
Florian Ballhaus: “There is so much intentionality in those choices. These colors are not casual. Color is a major theme of the movie, and accuracy is a major theme of the movie. There is that triangle we were always balancing: the original film, what the actors look like now and what the fashion actually looks like. We had to stay in the middle of all three.
“We could not make the movie feel right if suddenly something someone loved in real life looked completely different on-screen. It was very important that it never became about imposing a look over the fashion. We wanted detail. Texture. Fabric. You have to bring out the pinstripes, see detail the darker garments, the subtle shifts in material. If you lose that, you lose the whole point.”
The New York and Italy sections feel distinct without becoming exaggerated. How did you arrive at those palettes?
Florian Ballhaus: “A lot of that came directly from the locations themselves. Italy just looks different. The light is different, the tonality is different, the warmth is naturally there.
“New York has a cooler, sharper energy. Italy had these warmer tones, softer duskier textures, and we wanted to embrace that instead of trying to force it back into a New York look.
“The villa sequences were important. Those spaces had a natural, old-world feeling, and we leaned into that to shape the visual language of that part of the film. There is an emotional shift between locations as well, and we wanted the look to reflect that. Each place carries a different tone depending on where the characters are in the story, so we let that guide the palette and the light.
“It is not about pushing things in an obvious way, but about subtle adjustments that support the feeling of each moment. The environments are beautiful, but the emotional context underneath them is always changing, and we tried to let that come through visually.”
There is a sequence lit almost entirely by candlelight that feels very controlled but still natural. How did you approach building that look?
Florian Ballhaus: “We kept joking about Barry Lyndon because we wanted that candlelit, old-world feeling. It is a pivotal scene emotionally, so it needed two very different identities. At night, we really leaned into that dusky idea. Actual candlelight as the light source, darkness, weight. It had to feel naturalistic, but still dramatic.”
Joe Gawler: “That scene probably took the longest to find. Since it was lit mostly by candlelight, there was very little natural light, and the space was very enclosed. We were pushing mood without tipping into theatricality. You still need beautiful skin tones, you still need clarity, but emotionally it needed that heavier, darker feeling.
“That is where the grade becomes about nuance. Not just darkness for the sake of darkness, but making sure the tone supports what the scene is actually doing.”
The fashion show sequences feel almost documentary-like. How did you approach shooting live events with so little control?
Florian Ballhaus: “That was one of the most fun parts because we went from controlling everything to controlling almost nothing. We were inside real Dolce & Gabbana shows with very limited access. We shot with a SL25 digital Leica camera, handheld, like a documentary crew. We could not light anything. We just had to live inside what was happening.”
Joe Gawler: “The Leica handheld material got its own separate look, and the montage structure gave us freedom. Those moments are meant to wake the audience up. The music hits, the movement changes, the color changes. You feel it. The scenes are technically complex [to grade] because there are so many shots, and continuity becomes less rigid because the light is always moving. Those sequences are all about making them feel alive.”
Florian Ballhaus: “That actually became the strength of it. It gave the film little moments of reality inside this very glossy, controlled world. It tells the audience, ‘This is what it actually feels like behind the scenes.’
“For the bigger performance sequences, it was the opposite. That had to really feel like a show. We had four cameras, Steadicam, techno crane, cable cam, handheld, long lens up in the balcony. We just went for it. We only had a few hours, so all the planning had to happen beforehand. We built it from the inside out. It was six hours of organized chaos.”
Joe Gawler: “We leaned into stronger contrast, stronger color, stronger energy. The production design and lighting already gave us this vibrant world, so the job was really to bring it to life.”
You two have worked together for 20 years. What did it mean to return to this film together from a creative partnership perspective?
Joe Gawler: “Honestly, it feels like a dream. Everyone should be lucky enough to have a creative relationship like this. Florian and I have worked together for 20 years now and being able to come back and rebuild this world together after all that time, it is rare. Most people do not get that.”
Florian Ballhaus: “It is true. The trust changes everything. When you have worked together that long, there is less tiptoeing. There is less politeness for the sake of politeness. You can just be honest, and that honesty makes the work better.”
Joe Gawler: “There is the professional side of it, obviously, but there is also a real personal trust here. People in the DI were saying, ‘You two are actually good friends.’ And that matters. You are doing hard work, but you are also enjoying it. That is a gift.”
Florian Ballhaus: “What was beautiful about this film is that the movie itself is about that. It is about people who have worked together for 20 years. It is about what time does to people, professionally and personally. We were living that behind the scenes while making it. So, revisiting this film was not just about the characters on-screen. It was also about us looking at our own 20 years and realizing we were bringing that history into the work too. We’ll always have that.”