Hmmmm…
…mmmm. Hm.
…mmmm’kay.
.
I fear I’m just not understanding the hype about Kristen Stewart.
This is the best performance I’ve seen from her, ever, but I am still unconvinced that she fully understands what acting is. This portrayal of Diana Spencer, the People’s Princess, felt like a tepid yet hyperbolic SNL impression.
I knew within the first three minutes when Diana stopped at the diner that this was not gonna do it for me.
.
You know what this was—there’s a saturation of Diana content for the masses right now, and I feel like Kristen and nem watched Emma Corrin‘s Diana on Netflix’s “The Crown” and adapted their impersonation from that. Kind of like how on that “Family Guy” episode when Stewie created a clone of himself and then had his clone create one for Brian—each clone more challenged than the last.
The curl just did not… quite… curl enough for me but Stewart will probably snatch a nom, and perhaps the top prize, for acting, just like Renée Zellweger‘s Judy Garland in 2019’s “Judy.” The Academy loves a mediocre biopic, bruh.
.
The direction works because almost every other element around Stewart was top tier. I yearned for more scenes with Sally Hawkins because that lady melts into whatever role she plays—absolutely incredible. Timothy Spall‘s “Major Alistar Gregory” and Sean Harris‘ “Darren,” the estate’s head chef, were also knock out roles.
Spall’s character was haunting. I was scared for Diana whenever he’d creep up. His presence lingered even when he wasn’t in a scene. His command of the house staff was omnipresent and effectual. Spall killed this role.
.
Positives:
👑 Lighting—exactly what I expected—muted. Romantic. Not too sharp or saturated. Natural and candle lighting were applied beautifully. I loved all the scenes outdoors with the aspect ratio and cinematography—those scenes felt immersive.
👑 Cinematography and aspect ratio—the 1 : 66 aspect ratio, the European widescreen standard, hits different and I adore it when it works and makes sense. Like with “Jackie,” director Pablo Larraín knows how to elevate emotion by decreasing negative space and utilizing close-ups. The cinematography worked best during shots focused on individuals’ reactions to Diana or while tracking her movements.
Her life as a royal was chronicled under an intense media microscope and she was always the specimen, a point referenced during the narrative. Using a tighter than standard, almost claustrophobic aspect ratio and over-utilizing mid- and close-up shots drove home the aim.
👑 Production design—hard to miss this element! The setting is the early 1990s on a country estate frequented by the British royals every Christmas holiday. Opulent furnishings, check. Baroque wallpaper and accompanying trimmings, check. Rich golds and rococo textures, check. A muted color palette that supplemented the ensemble cast’s costuming, check plus. Superb!
👑 Costuming, hair and makeup—the stars of the show, honestly. Give all the awards to the tailors and seamstresses that worked every detail of Spencer’s wardrobe, which acts as its own character. Stewart was believable as Diana because the physical art applied to her person, via tailored suits and dresses and elaborately coiffed hair, elevated her appearance. There was a transformation but I still think something was missing to take this performance over the edge.
👑 Foci of the house staff —I loved the detailed focus on the estate’s village of house staff as an introduction to the film’s narrative. Before we’re introduced to the royal family, the audience gets to peek behind the curtain into the kitchen of the grand estate, which was equip with hoards of fresh seafood and exotic fruits brought in by the military.
The camera glides over hanging notices urging the staff to be mindful of their noise as to not disturb the royal family. Sally Hawkins plays Maggie, an aide to Diana, and her closest ally and confidant. The film explores a depth to their relationship and a bit of its fracturing after Maggie is reassigned, leaving Diana with no one to turn to during an exaggerated bout of extreme anxiety and debilitating rage stemming from her shuttered position in the royal family. The kitchen signs projected this idea for the house staff to appear invisible to the royals, but for Diana, they were her saving grace. She leaned on figures outside of the family to save her sanity.
Sean Harris’ Darren, the estate’s head chef, was like the embodiment of conscience for a distressed Diana. He appeared at the beginning of the film when Diana pulled off to the side of the road to retrieve her father’s old jacket from a scarecrow in the middle of a field near the estate, and again when Diana visits him following Maggie’s reassignment. He was the angel on her shoulder. He dispelled rumors that Maggie had disparaged Diana’s character to earn cheap points with the other house staff prior to her reassignment. He was firm with her but fair, and reassured Diana that there were people there, outside of the family, who wanted her to succeed. Darren’s time with Diana as a member of the royal family had spanned a decade, so there was an unimpeachable rapport between the two that was translated delicately between the two actors.
Negatives:
😐 Score—bruh, how yo? 🤣 I thought I was being Punk’d. Yo, why did they use this like 1920s-era Harlem Renaissance-y jazz to score this damn film?! Blaring horns that could’ve been replaced with strings, like during the scene when Diana was silently walking to her old estate at night. The tone of the scene was a somber, low noise level, reminiscent of a teenager sneaking out of the house. Tip-toe vibes, ya know? Those horns were so confusing and off-putting. The music was fine, but was not applicable to the tone of the scene.
😐 Stewart’s lukewarm performance—honey knows how to wear a dress. And a suit. But I feel like all her performance boiled down to was a strong stride in an elegant gown down a long hall way, dancing around the estate, and an array of demure looks mimicking Lady Spencer. I was not impressed.
😐 Overuse of Anne Boleyn’s ghost and other hallucinations—loved the exploration of the parallels between Boleyn and Spencer. I appreciated the imagery. ‘Twas a bit overdone during the scene when Diana goes back to her childhood home and breaks the problematic pearl necklace gifted by her estranged husband, a gift he had also given to his mistress. Again, totes understand the historic significance, but…🥴🥴😒.
😐 The conclusion—”abrupt” would be too nice an adjective. The last fifteen minutes of the film felt like I was watching an entirely different film. “Spencer” went from a specific, uncomfortable and almost suffocating psych drama to a cheesy rom-com. I just—
.
I probably will not revisit this film. The trailer was better than the film and I think I’d rather continue imagining this oddly tumultuous family through its Netflix lens.