Diana (2013)

Well I wasn't expecting much of this film anyway but it was very disappointing I'm not sure why Naomi Watts was chosen to play the role of Diana because in my opinion she is nothing like her. As far as the actual film is concerned, I didn't like how it focused so much on the relationship between Diana and Hasnat Khan. It also seemed to focus mostly on the most photographic parts of Diana's life like the landmine visit, the clothes auction that William suggested and of course the infamous photos of her on Dodi's Liner before her death. In my opinion it's just portraying what everyone already has seen but Naomi Watts adds nothing to it. There was only one Diana and no one can replace her. I can totally understand the negative reviews. Some people's lives are just better left alone.

What I was annoyed with in this film are the moments with Diana's sons. Throughout the course of the protagonist mentions her children, according to her the most important thing in the world, but they are showed only for one brief second. Isn't this a contradiction? Although "Diana" is technically very well filmed and offers many beautiful moments that characterize the pressure under which the princess lived, the movie nevertheless fails to convey what is the center of this achievement and that is unconditional love which breaks all barriers of feudal and religious beliefs. "Diana" has its good moments, but in the end leaves a rather weak overall impression.

There are many challenges in producing a Biopic. The visual aspect, the audience already knows the characters, the impossibility of recreating at details every moment of one's life, and try to summarize it in a 90-180 minutes movie, the responsibility of keep up with one's legacy. The list to not even try to produce a biopic goes on and on and on and on.Hirschbiegel's "Diana" was heavily criticized by specialized press for not keeping up with Lady Diana's legacy. Or many of those critics just wanted to see more of all the scandals, or even a little more of the humanitarian Diana, more of a political movie. They wanted more than the simple love story in which stars, just by chance, one of the most influential woman in the 20th century.When Lady Diana died in August of 1997, I was a three year old in Brazil, which is to say that I don't really know how I reacted to the news, but I don't think I suffered it at all. In fact, Lady Di hardly lived in my imagination in my two decades of life, except to think how "exotic" or "unique" was her wedding dress (that thought was courtesy of many TV-Specials about Royal Marriage, as a preparation to Prince William's and Lady Katherine's marriage in 2011).So as a layman in the subject, Diana was a very interesting movie. It shows a troubled woman who have a hard time living by the crown's rules, who wants to make the difference in the world and make it a better and peaceful place, and somehow finds love in the arms of the only person in the world who don't care about her.By far the thing that I mostly enjoy about the movie was Naomi Watts. As in John Ridley's "All Is By My Side", Steven Spielberg's "Lincoln", Richard Glatzer's and Wash Westmoreland's "The Last of Robin Hood", David Fincher's "The Social Network" and Anne Fontaine's "Coco Avant Chanel", I was only able to see the protagonist as the character and not as the actor performing it. The image that I have of Lady Di, Abe Lincoln, Coco Chanel, Hendrix and Errol Flynn are the image of their characters in the biopic, being a romanticized version or an accurate representation of reality."Diana" have their share of cute but non-believable moments between Lady Di and Dr. Khan, even if those moments actually happened in real life. They lived a romance, but not IN a romance is what I mean. And those silly little moments that do not look anything like real life upset me a little bit. Feels like cheating in a test. On the other hand, there are moments with other Lady Di. The humanitarian Diana isn't very developed in scene, but you can feel it deeply and real, not just as a propaganda for fame, but as real care for the world and the situation. Some bits of the self deprecating Lady Diana also feels organic and real, with a couple exceptions of course.As a romantic drama, "Diana" is a good choice. Beautiful shots, a cool story and all that a good romance needs, once it is an adaptation of Kate Snell's book, "Diana: Her Last Love". As a biopic, it won't fulfill expectations, if you look for a historical piece. Is an introduction to the subject "Lady Diana", a good one I think, but it calls for supporting material if you wanna go deeper in the history.

I saw the DVD having heard about the negative reviews first. I wasn't disappointed except I felt Naomi didn't suit or play Diana well.I have seen other actresses do a better job. In style (Naomi lacked class) her voice, (Diana had a whining upper class defensive tone) and physically, the high buttocks were not Diana's who was tall(5ft 9 without heels, she was as tall as Charles and taller with heels) and slender other than having larger breasts. Most know now the so called affair and engagement (if there ever was one?) with Dodi was a set up by the father Mohammed who really was the one who should be blamed for the accident. In fact the two went along with it to suit Diana's spurned love affair with Hasnat Khan, whose family would not accept Diana and it is doubtful he wanted marriage to her either. Dodi was engaged at the time, but he went along with anything his father demanded. But one thing the film did get right, that Diana did arrange the last meeting, and media coverage and let the press know; posed deliberately kissing Dodi,and sitting forlorn on the diving board. It was just to anger Hasnat for his refusal to marry her and didn't like the publicity he was getting. (His fault too perhaps what did expect sleeping with one of the most beautiful and famous women in the world) The resignation of her long standing secretary when he didn't know about the BBC interview. The worst thing she could have done as it showed her up as an adulteress too!(The film omitted that part of the interview) She had gone through several men by then, caused one divorce, and was bitter regarding Camilla. Forgetting to mention the affair with the English guards officer who she used too, while still legally married to Charles and that Harry bears a remarkable resemblance to him. And his uncle mind you? Everyone blamed her death and Dodi on the Royal family and their treatment of her, including a conspiracy to kill her, that Mohammed pushed to extremes insisting on a public inquest. That showed him up for the man he was, bitter and hating Prince Phillip and the British government who refused him British citizenship. He was the one who instrumented the Dodi and Diana affair and alleged engagement. Diana was then a loose cannon, wanted love and the company of a man, unfortunately she was rotten picking them and world notice regarding the land mine problem.I don't think the film did her memory any favors, but in someways it did show up that she wasn't all innocent especially her childish and immature handling of the press and relationship with Dodi. To get back at Khan, not so Charles and Camilla. (Whose relationship later was put on hold after her death). As far as Mr Khan is concerned, he did marry a Muslim woman, they separated and who knows where he is now, back home in Pakistan?