Skip to main content

Kristen Stewart Performs Astonishingly in Dynamic New Diana Movie


“A fable based on a real tragedy” is how Pablo Larraín’s Spencer introduces itself amid a pale English countryside shot in diluted colours to better convey its’ setting of the early 1990s -a technique it will continue to keep up for the duration of the film. It casts a kind of a sheen over the movie that resembles in some way the colour quality of 90s videotape, but also evokes a sense of dreamlike fancy -as though it were a distant memory or unclear history. Diana Spencer (Kristen Stewart) often considers herself against the judgment of history and the legacy of the British royal family. She wonders what will be made of her, the scandal that always seems to surround her, after she’s gone. One can only speculate what the real Princess of Wales might have thought about the possibility of evaluations such as this one.
Spencer feels like a conscious spiritual sequel to Larraín’s 2016 Jackie, about the life and mental state of Jackie Kennedy in the immediate aftermath of the assassination of her husband. Spencer is similarly set over a brief window: Christmas weekend at Sandringham Estate in Norfolk, just across from where Diana grew up, in 1991 -the height of public scrutiny into her marriage with Prince Charles (Jack Farthing) and his affairs. The film immediately emphasizes the pressure placed on her during this time, as staff await her belated arrival with extreme judgement. Her choice to drive her own car and her confusion en route is contrasted against the preparation being made in the kitchens of Sandringham, ornate and immaculate desserts that symbolize the air of perfection expected of Royals. And which she quite clearly cannot live up to. Just before arriving, she spontaneously decides to cross a field over her old family property to retrieve a coat on a scarecrow that once belonged to her father, to the bafflement of the head chef (Sean Harris) who has come to retrieve her. It’s both an image of affable subversion in her stately role and a sign of her unhealthy mental state, which will continue to be tried through the weekend.
Once at Sandringham, Larraín’s atmosphere becomes noticeably more claustrophobic, long regal hallways giving way to more undisturbed regalia that could pass for a stately British version of the Overlook; and the camera often close-in on Diana navigating this environment with discomfort and even a slight distaste. She is a prisoner in this world and has virtually no agency of her own –her every decision made for her by the acolytes of the Royal institution, represented most starkly in a composite character Major Gregory, played tremendously by Timothy Spall. Larraín makes you keenly feel this restraint and the effect it has on Diana’s psyche through deliberate employment of disorienting cinematography, cacophonous music, and of course honing in on the nuances in Stewart’s performance, which is certainly one of her best.
It may well be the apex of Stewart’s career journey, after so long in the shadow of Twilight. This is a role which she doesn’t only play well, but “disappears” into, as is the common credit. Aided by that film grain and costumes that are recognizable Diana staples, she transforms into the Princess of Wales in both appearance and expression -it’s remarkable! She boasts one of the better English accents attempted by an American in recent years as well, and proves more than capable of conveying the sheer strain and mental anguish Diana was no doubt under during this time. And her scenes with the young Princes William and Harry (she of course sees Charles very little) are adorable. It’s one of the most impressive performances of the year, and one of the most satisfying –in that it will break the minds of so many of those who still deny or underwrite Stewart’s talents due to those vampire movies when she wins an Oscar. There’s no doubt anymore she’s one of the most compelling actresses of her generation.
And it’s clear that she relates to Diana –in fact some have already noted the parallels in their stories, particularly in how they’ve been perceived by the public. At one point Diana notes to Charles the double standard in how the paparazzi seem way more focused on her when it comes to exploiting the cracks in their marriage. She is demonized, ostracized in the press, while he gets comparatively little attention. Yet she’s constantly challenging them and her Sandringham caretakers, insisting on having her curtains open and going for an evening stroll on the grounds. It paints a picture of a Diana in revolt of the Royal Family, disinterested anymore in her marriage and possibly willing to sabotage the Crown itself. But then, Larraín keeps the clarity of this ambiguous to his audience, couching her more dramatic actions and experiences in surreal, distressing reveries that are some of the films’ most affecting moments. The careful planting of a book on Anne Boleyn causes her to see the mirror in hers and Annes’ stories, to the point she has visions of the sixteenth century Queen. In one harrowing hallucination she imagines herself eating the pearls of a necklace that Charles had gifted her -the same necklace he’d gifted Camilla. The effect of such sequences isn’t so much that they blur Diana’s reality, but they provide a window into the recesses of her conscious. We experience the paranoia that her favourite dresser and sole confidant Maggie (Sally Hawkins) is spreading rumours, the immense insecurity in her place within the Royal Family, and the depression that her life must be this  soulless. By the time she genuinely puts herself in danger in the films’ climax, you’re in complete understanding of why.
Yet there’s a sweet optimism to the ending, in spite of all we know both presented in this movie and the history that hangs over it, one that shows Diana in her best light -and of course it’s away from the royal system and with only the love of the people that matter. “All I Need is a Miracle”, she sings, and Larraín would have you believe she could get one. Spencer comes at a pertinent time of royal interest, where one of the biggest TV shows around is built on re-examining their legacy, the Windsor family is showing signs of dissolution, and the institution of the Crown itself is less popular than ever. There is a Prince enshrouded in scandal and a Duchess who has inherited her mother-in-law’s role as the new family scapegoat; to the point she and her Prince have severed certain ties -even royals don’t so much care for royalty anymore. Spencer knows it is entering into a larger, possibly contentious conversation, and it’s certainly not unbiased in doing so. But while it may posit and speculate in its’ portrait of the late Miss Spencer, its’ truths are stark and bleak. 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more