A Princesa

I love documentaries more when they include archival materials such as videos and documents. This documentary is full of videos from the early 1980s to 1997 covering the time Diana passed from Prince Charles's girlfriend to her death. However, the film does not offer a timeline, a context, or an interview that helps situate the viewer in the images they are watching. For those who lived through those times, it is not challenging to situate themselves in the time situations shown in the archive videos happen. But anyone who did not live during those years can feel lost in the film. It feels like the people behind the film had to access all that video material and focus mainly on the editing part forgetting about the viewers. It could be done much better.

To start, yes there is a lot of low quality clips and much of what you see here has been in previous documentaries, however, it's not exactly possible to improve video quality from thirty years ago so you shouldn't judge it based on today's standards, that's just stupid. As for it "being done before" it's important to note that many docs fall to the wayside over the years and become difficult to track down, so there will always be new editions for every generation so long as Diana stays relevant.

I found this to be an interesting watch. There is no narrative, at least not in a literal sense, but there is an obvious angle to the documentary. Not all the information is presented, some parts of the clips shown are deliberately edited to enhance mood or atmosphere, like painting the prince or princess in a certain light. That being said, it's surprisingly unbiased, there was a lot of uncomfortable dialogue from interviews with citizens or journalists who were for or against Princess Diana. It was quite polarized The worst was the paparazzi. This documentary solidified my assumption that the paparazzi were as bad as everyone made them out be. The way they talked about her was disgusting, like she wasn't even a human being. They harassed her to the point of breaking her spirit. If she resisted them she was called a f---ing b----, if she dared played along and smiled or engaged with them they had the audacity to call her a mediawhore. It's like victim blaming after a rape, and it is extremely uncomfortable to watch.

I was also surprised to see so many people given a platform to speak out against her and say such repulsive things. I guess the bar was set incredibly low for journalistic integrity in the UK in the 80's and 90's. Journalists were given the opportunity to voice pointless, unfounded arguments which often ended up in childish name calling (?!).

The truth was that Diana was an unusual woman. Her humanitarian efforts were commendable, she did more than any of the other Royal family were willing to do at the time. Yes her marriage was on the rocks from the outset. Interviews with Charles have spelled out the truth from the begginning. I don't think he ever truly deceived Diana, but I believe she had trouble accepting and facing the truth and thought, like many women, that she could change him. It was cruel to expect her to just face up and deal with the situation and take it in stride. Blasting her for having mental health crises was just stigmatizing mental illness and it's part and parcel to the incredibly prejudiced attitudes of the time (which sadly still persist to this day). She was not a saint and that is not why people still talk about her to this day, she was representative of a hope for a future that really we will never know.

I recommend this doc but it is difficult at times to watch.

This masterfully crafted documentary takes the viewer along the entire arc of the Charles-and-Diana saga. It is edited entirely from contemporaneous archival footage, some well known, some perhaps never seen since. Because the only voices are those of the principals or of the commentators of the era, there is no supercilious voice-over, which often amounts to little more than self-important distraction. You don't need to know all the details to follow along. The result conveys an immediacy that belies the decades since the events. One of the cringiest moments is the excerpt from the BBC interview with now discredited newscaster Martin Bashir, now that we know the lies and forgeries he used fraudulently to secure that interview. Additionally, in my opinion, Charles comes across very poorly: in his own words, he reveals himself as cold, callous, insecure, and none too bright. Finally, the ruthlessness of paparazzi is well in evidence. That said, there is no overly emotional angle in favor of, or against, Diana or any other subject, leaving viewers to make up their own minds. A brilliant documentary.

As soon as I saw this had premiered at Sundance, I suspected it would be worth the watch. Why? Because unlike the glut of so-called documentaries about this ill-fated yet fascinating woman--with their dubious research, endless speculation, and onslaught of unverified opinions--this extremely well-made film doesn't tell you what the producers are pretty sure must have happened during Diana's life using a bunch of crap from the public archives that everyone's already seen a zillion times. Instead, it shows you exactly what went on through the use of historical footage and audio--most of which (as a Yank) I've never before seen or heard before. It's meticulously edited to chronologically follow the facts. By doing this, the story becomes so engrossing that there were times I felt swept up in the saga as if I was there and experiencing everything for the first time. That's good filmmaking imho. Totally worth the time investment.

This documentary tells, at a pace, the story of Princess Diana through media coverage.

Many phases of Diana's relationship with the media, eg the Bashir interview, are worth a documentary in their own right.

The commentary is unspoken through the editing and music score. It doesn't tell those who lived through the 80s and 90s anything new and it certainly won't be last work on Diana's life.

There has been a lot of work selecting a vast range of archive footage, primarily from the UK and the US, with many hitherto unseen finds.

Most, if not all, of the original source material was shot in 4:3. I question the decision to crop and zoom all of this for widescreen, with a consequent degradation in picture quality. It would have been better to have preserved the original 4:3 aspect ratio.

On the Bashir interview, these are the only clips credited to the source on screen during the documentary. I understand this is because the BBC didn't give clearance for their use (the BBC has actually banned it from being licensed or repeated) and the documentary makers are claiming fair dealing on its use.