Diana

DIANA was almost universally panned on its release in September, and continues to attract negative comments from users. In truth it is not as bad as it was made out to be, even though some of the details seem implausible (would Diana (Naomi Watts) be able to leave Kensington Palace on her nocturnal visits to Hasnat (Naveen Andrews) so easily, without being discovered or hounded by reporters?) Nonetheless Oliver Hirschbiegel's film does a competent job of portraying the sheer loneliness of Diana's existence in Kensington Palace, surrounded by servants but with no one to love her. Although tremendously popular with people and the media alike, she cannot get close to anyone; and when she does, her love-affair is doomed. Watts does not resemble Diana facially, but she does a good job of conveying both the good and not-so- good sides of her character; her desire to help people, her feeling of alienation from all families, and her tendency to manipulate the media to suit her purposes. The film suggests, perhaps controversially, that Diana brought much of the press harassment on herself, especially when she asks a trusted photographer to take snaps of herself and Dodi Fayed (Cas Anvar), with the sole purpose of making Hasnat jealous, and thereby encouraging him to call her again after a long interval. She certainly knows how to portray herself on screen - as seen, for instance, in her celebrated interview with the BBC's Martin Bashir (Prasanna Puwanrajah), where she deliberately adopts a pose for the camera so as to obtain maximum sympathy from viewers. Nonetheless the film does suggest that she was more sinned against than sinning - a victim, perhaps, of the contemporary obsession with fame and celebrity.

It's the last 2 years in the life of Princess Diana (Naomi Watts). She's separated and meets Pakistani heart surgeon Hasnat Khan (Naveen Andrews). They fall in love in a secret affair. She would finalize the divorce. The open secret of the love affair would be front page news and he would break up with her. They would get back together but it would not last.

The romance doesn't come off right away. It's supposed to be love at first sight. However it's a weak start. Naveen is playing very cold and the relationship has very little heat. It does build up to a more reasonable romance but this is more of a tragedy. And it doesn't rise up to be a good tragedy. It's more of a beautifully shoot Lifetime movie. It doesn't help that there are some cheesy lines thrown in. I don't like to argue over accuracy about this movie. I doubt it's important enough to warrant the absolute truth. Naomi Watts gallantly tries to keep this from being a complete waste of time.

Fatigued dramatization of Princess Diana's complicated love life in the final years before her untimely death in a Paris car accident in 1997. Stephen Jeffreys' screenplay (inspired by Kate Snell's book, "Diana: Her Last Love"), asserts that Diana was on the rebound from a broken love affair with a Pakistani heart surgeon when she died, and was using Dodi Fayed (who was killed alongside her) to stir up publicity and perhaps a bit of jealousy. As seen from a distance playing the piano, or filmed from behind getting out of cars or walking down corridors, Naomi Watts bears a passing resemblance to Diana (her coif is the only thing which will evoke memories of the ill-fated Princess, and even this isn't very convincing when seen in close-up). It isn't necessarily Watts' fault--she gives the part a noble try--but no modern actress should be expected to walk in Diana's shoes and pull off a feat of magic (even the real Princess of Wales found the role difficult to play!). Perhaps it's too soon to reenact this sad bit of history. In any case, the attempt is both crass and pointless, with the jet-setting locales and elaborate camera set-ups only adding to the discomforting feeling of wasted money, effort and time. ** from ****

I went to see this movie almost without any expectations. Granted, in my mind, Naomi Watts's performance in "Mulholland Dr." was exceptional, but that was over ten years ago, so I made a deliberate effort not to compare the roles. I had not seen any reviews and did not know anything about the movie, except its title character. I knew the main outlines of Diana's life and had seen some of her interviews, although I was more familiar with her death. Thus I had no opinion of Diana herself, except that I had heard a little of her famous charity work. With these things in mind I went to the theater. To me the movie was excellent. The atmosphere was enchanting and at times haunting. Watts played Diana like a shape shifter, matching her every move when the character presented herself to the media, while breaking her facade in private. She portrayed tons of difficult emotion that had to convey an aristocratic filter created by the character's upbringing. Diana's life was presented as a complex mixture of personal and public, feelings and constraints, that lead to her being slowly crushed by the outside pressures she could not control. The movie's purpose was obviously apolitical and tried to convey Diana's driving force that was interpreted in the movie as love. It succeeded in this very convincingly. The credit for this goes not only to Watts, but also the director Oliver Hirschbiegel (who, I now notice, directed "Der Untergang", an exceptional film in its own right) and Naveen Andrews, who played his role with credibility and originality. Altogether I found the movie to be on-par with the best biographical dramatizations in film, even coming close to "King's Speech".

Now that I had seen the film, and had been thoroughly impressed by it, imagine my surprise when I tuned in on IMDb. At this moment the score was 4.9. I immediately noticed a pattern. Of all the 2900 voters 446 (15.4 %) had voted 1. In fact the value 1 dominated the chart, being the most frequent vote of all the values. I interpreted this is a symptom of pure ignorance. Obviously the movie is not the worst of all time, like for example "The Room", "Manos: The Hands of Fate" or "Plan 9 from Outer Space". There in fact seems to be an almost organized effort to trash the movie. I do not think this has much to do with the film itself, but is a continuation of the politicization of Diana's life. I would recommend, when reading reviews, to recognize the critics who judge the film based on their own preconceived notions and those who judge the film on its own merits.

My score for "Diana" is between 8 and 9, which rounds it up to 9.

I can understand why Diana might be a disappointment for most.

If one is after a detailed portrait of "The Loneliness of the Disaffected Princess" then this film will only partially fulfill.

If, however, one is after a simple, easy to watch love story about the affair so well hidden from the public eye in the 18 months prior to her sudden death, then fulfilled you shall be.

The disappointment for me came from the fact Diana's director, Oliver Hirschbiegel, created Downfall, the depiction of Hitler's final days. The film was an Oscar nominee, a deserved reward for its depth. Diana is his first foray into a love story. He talks of his research coming from the 2004 inquiry and The Kate Snell book of the affair. I suggest that the details coming from those sources was light and frothy.

The film is pleasant enough with a shallowness to match a children's wading pool, but as I say, it depends on what you are expecting. Oh, and Naomi Watts is lovely but not quite as beautiful as The Princess we remember!