The greatest films give us what we need, not what we want. This distinction lies at the core of the some of the best films ever made — without it, Colonel Kurtz would have come home and gone to therapy, the issues of the Corleone family could have been solved over a spaghetti dinner and Jack Torrance would have written a great book. Audiences pay for what they want and seldom seek what they actually need. True to this pattern, “Diana” attempts to give audiences only what they want, and as a result, is wholly underwhelming.
Oliver Hirschbiegel’s “Diana” follows the last two years of the titular Princess Diana’s (Naomi Watts) life as she engages in a passionate, secret affair with Pakistani heart surgeon Hasnat Khan (Naveen Andrews). While the premise holds potential, the script delivers nothing substantial to sustain it. Though it is subpar, the clumsy and awkward dialogue is probably one of the best elements of the movie, because the narrative itself is practically nonexistent. The plot — if it can be called that at all — meanders through the twists and turns of the climactic moments of Diana’s final years. At best, it is vapid; at worst, boring and disagreeable. While Watts could most certainly have soared as Diana, the script gives her next to nothing to work with. As a result, the only reason left for audience members to empathize with the film’s on-screen protagonist is if they actually cared for the beloved late princess in real life.
Even hardcore Diana fans will be lost by the end of the film, however, as verisimilitude and honesty are thrown out the window in favor of pulp and Kardashian-esque conflict. Yet in the midst of such heavy plot degeneration, there is a silver lining. Cinematographer Rainer Klausmann does a spectacular job, utilizing subtle color grading and stunning deep focus to make “Diana” look, and at times feel, like a movie worth watching. However, even Klausmann’s camera work cannot save the film from itself. Similarly, art director Mark Ragget and costume designer Julian Day deliver an understated yet encapsulating mise-en-sc?ne of the not-too-distant past, using muted tones and punctuating highlights to bring the glamour to life. Sadly, without a story to guide it, the pleasing aesthetic can only hold the viewer’s attention for so long before losing purpose.
During her life, Diana was somewhat of an obsession in America. Something about her spunk, grace and delicate ability to balance both strength and charm enchanted Americans in the ‘90s, many of whom saw her a reflection of themselves. She was beautiful and compassionate — the epitome of class. The true story of Diana’s life is dramatic and compelling, yet by failing to recognize the simple impact of one iconic life, the film continues to disappoint. In writing this script, Stephen Jeffreys has not only forgotten the natural drama of Diana’s life, but also ignored her naturally empathetic character. Although the film attempts to examine Diana as a victim of fame, it loses itself in excessive melodramas and plot twists. The result is dehumanizing — a fame-obsessed piece of media that makes a victim of Diana once again.
With “Diana,” Hirschbiegel attempts to give us what we want: the juicy, “real” story behind Diana’s affair and death. At its very best, “Diana” could have been a shallow and indulgent film. Forgoing the truth of her history in both narrative and character render even this superficial goal impossible. “Diana” not only fails to entertain, but it also dishonestly disrespects the very subject of the film. Put simply, the film is not worthy of a trip to the theater.
