‘SPENCER’ LETS DOWN BOTH LADY DI, KRISTEN STEWART
Princess Diana gained the affection of the world for her sincere involvement with the human race. But “Spencer,” the new biopic about the Princess of Wales, reduces her to an eating disorder and a series of twitches, presenting her as a self-preoccupied, self-pitying nuisance. It’s a distortion of her character and a disservice to history.
“Spencer” does an equal disservice to its lead actress, Kristen Stewart. It turns a natural talent into a mannered freak. It takes one of the most promising screen actresses of her generation and casts her out to sea with nothing to hold onto but a hideous script that’s all attitude without depth or understanding.
Director Pablo Larrain did something similar to Jacqueline Kennedy and Natalie Portman in 2016’s “Jackie” — the same distortions; the same reversion to the mean of pathetic, helpless victimhood; the same bringing out the careerworst performance in a proven talent. But “Spencer” is the more gruesome spectacle, because Diana is fresher in mind and because Stewart’s performance is not just odd, maudlin and inaccurate, it’s embarrassing.
This isn’t Stewart’s fault. It was up to her to try things. It was up to her director to say, “Yes, do that.” But how could a responsible filmmaker, not bent on sabotage, see the direction in which Stewart was heading and not stop her?
The main problem with Stewart’s performance as Diana is that she gets wedded to a pattern of speech, which she applies to virtually every line of dialogue in in the film. She takes a deep breath and gushes out each line in a fast, breathy whisper. She speaks this way to servants, to Queen Elizabeth and to her two children. She speaks this way when she is indoors and outdoors, when she is speaking to someone next to her, and when she is speaking to a crowd.
Diana didn’t talk like that. No one talks like that. It’s just weird. Stewart herself looks uncomfortable speaking in this way.
This is not to be confused with Diana’s discomfort, which she also plays and never stops playing. Stewart is usually the most relaxed of performers, which allows her to follow the inspiration of the moment in her reactions. Here, watching her, one can almost feel
her neck tense as she speaks every line. Again, not Diana’s tension, but Stewart’s.
“Spencer” calls itself “a fable from a true tragedy,” which is a fancy way of saying, “This isn’t true.” The year is 1991, and as we meet Diana Spencer, she is lost, driving through the countryside on the way to some royal weekend. Along the way, she stops to steal the jacket off a scarecrow. Why do you think she does that? (Don’t overthink this. Answer: Because this is a bad movie.)
She shows up at the castle, late again, and becomes very upset that she is expected to wear a necklace of white pearls. Why? Because her husband, Prince Charles (Jack Farthing), has given the same pearls to his lover, Camilla. And so, Diana eats a couple of the pearls (kind of like Grape Nuts, but without the nutritional value.) Later, she tears off the necklace, and the pearls go cascading down a stairway, just like they did in the Rachel Weisz movie, “My Cousin Rachel.”
There are interludes: At one point, Diana walks down a corridor and starts doing an interpretive dance. Then she sees a little girl ballet dancing. Mournfully,
Diana watches her. The camera spins around and around, while a somber string section thrums on. (You get the idea. Nothing happens.)
Some of the British critics have called “Spencer” an indictment of the royal family, and yet no one here does anything bad to Diana but Diana. For instance, at one point, she takes garden clippers and snips off a piece of her arm.
Here in the film, the royals just seem long-suffering, like they’re tolerating a crazy person, which hardly seems unfair, since “Spencer” presents Diana as a miserable wreck, hallucinating visions of Anne Boleyn.
Larrain needs another hobby. From here on, he should really stop picking on dead women.