Directed By Pablo Larrain

Starring – Kristen Stewart, Timothy Spall, Jack Nielen

The Plot – During her Christmas holidays with the royal family at the Sandringham estate in Norfolk, England, Diana (Stewart) decides to leave her marriage to Prince Charles (Jack Farthing).

Rated R for adult language

spencer trailer – YouTube

POSITIVES

– Refreshing retrospective. As to where most films and documentaries pertaining to Diana capitalize on the beauty and independence of a woman fighting back against the establishment that fought so desperately to suppress her, “Spencer” is very much a revealing delve into the mundane and mentalities of a woman with the weight of expectations and heritage constantly on her shoulders. Because of such, we’re not only treated the tediousness of a daily routine where everything is laid out before her, and every choice made about her decided by someone else, but we’re also treated to Diana’s own ongoing rivalry with the media itself, which shaped her in ways that were convenient to their own monetary motivations. This prescribes a jaded disposition for Diana, whose balance between the two sides has her constantly engaged in an identity crisis of her own, all the while illustrating a vulnerability from her enveloping claustrophobia that indulges us in some revealing aspects to Diana’s own frail psyche, in more challenging ways than one.

– Perfect prosthetics. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a late year addition to the list of best make-up and wig work for the Academy Award nominees, but certainly one that easily earns my pick for the astonishing transformation it supplants to its leading lady. Stewart and Diana look nothing alike in their typical appearances, so it’s all the more remarkable that the additions of pale skin tone and a signature wig help to go a long way in conveying believability, while bringing Diana back to life for another two hours for audience entertainment. It seamlessly transcends the aspect of an actor portraying this real life figure of pop culture, and instead attains a point in the film where your skepticism gives into the ideal that this is Diana right in front of us, providing several instances along the way where the likeness between them is downright scary for what the production is able to articulate in recreating an age of history that is quite literally frozen in time.

– Pablo Picasso. No, the iconic painter isn’t present in this film, but rather the cinematic visionary, Larrain, whose artistic merits go a long way in cementing an engagement that is entrancing to say the least. Because the entirety of this film is set in and around this gargantuan mansion, Larrain is able to find creative ways to articulate the depth of the setting into the materializing of feelings between Diana and the rest of Charles’ family. Such an example pertains in several pursuing shots of Diana, which not only feed into the lack of privacy that plagues her daily routine, but also conjures with it the invasive creativity to roam freely that makes Pablo a master strategist with how he designs and constructs the movements of certain sequences. It creates a cold, damp, and especially loveless interior that at times makes this feel like a ghost story for how characters weave in and out of the lens spontaneously at any given moment, and when decorated with Claire Mathon’s weathered cinematography, instills a grainy quality to the imagery that often feels like photographs of familiarity coming to life before our very eyes.

– Operatic score. Composer Jonny Greenwood does it again, with a suffocating series of tracks that creates an underlining tension during sequences that are otherwise unconfrontational. This not only gives insight to the audience into the mentalities of the characters involved, but also produces some unsettling compositions that feel like they could easily reside in a ghost story or psychological thriller, but still maintain coherence with the imagery and interactions here that they’re being decorated with. There’s great versatility in the instrumental usage, which keeps each from feeling like just extensions of the same track, and allows the tonal enveloping of each scene to transcend expectation in a way that affords audience the freedom to interpret the scene in a way that would otherwise be easily passed over without Greenwood permeating psychology in every shriek.

– Firestorm performance. Kristen Stewart has never been better. I say that as a result of a shape-shifting performance as Diana, which will inevitably earn her the first Oscar buzz of her entire career, and justifiably so. This isn’t just an actor impersonating a heralded figure, but rather a complete transformation from Stewart, whose accent inflections and vocal cadences completely eviscerate any semblance of familiarity from the youthful actress, before evolving to a turn that is psychologically crippling from the frailty she unloads on the shoulders of the character. Because of such, there’s an obvious empathy that is earned from the audience as a result of Diana’s own discontent with repetition, but also in the way Stewart harvests a childlike innocence occasionally to bring the adventurous child inside, out of her to remind her of who she once was, all the while illustrating a jaded disposition that victimizes her in ways that physically and mentally deconstruct the ideal of royal family stardom in the public eye.

– Unconventional beats. Biopics are a dime a dozen in 2021, that mostly follow a formula of bullet points in drawing each of them together unintentionally. “Spencer” does not come from the same train of thought, as not only does a complete lack of factual information allow it to explore the creativity of its material, but tonally it is unlike anything that you would truly expect from a Princess Diana story. At its core, this could easily echo a psychological thriller, especially with the traumatic heft of Diana’s deteriorating psyche at the forefront of this introspective narrative. But even beyond that, it’s the unpredictability of an uplifting resolution that most knowledgeable with Diana’s life truly wouldn’t expect to materialize, deviating from a path of expectation that leads to more than a few moments of eye-opening realizations that stitches together what is factually known about the weekend, all in favor of a complete story that no one knows or has ever experienced.

– Impeccable detail. Whether in the iconic appeal of Diana’s most notorious gowns making up the entirety of her designs in the film, or the impressive feat of finding an on-site location that doubles for the immensity of the Sandringham House, it’s proof that no attention to effort was spared in conjuring authenticity. What’s most impressive about this is it stems from the budget of an independent production company, yet harvests big budget ideals by spending its miniscule budget in the areas where it matters the most, creating a palpable sense of upper class imagery that can be seen and constructed within the context that only adds to Diana’s souring engagement with her royal in-laws.

NEGATIVES

– Weak supporting cast. This isn’t in the magnitude of the performances, but rather the appeal of their likenesses, which when compared to Stewart’s seamless transformation, feel cheaply ineffective in attaining believability with the characters they’re asked to portray. Not only do the actors not look anything like their respective counterparts, but the same make-up designs that helped transcend Stewart’s familiarity have apparently ran out here, as there’s not even a hint that production was used to even slightly alter their appearances. This could be intentional, as the entirety of the story’s focus remains faithfully by Diana’s side, but after spending so much time with her, it renders the other aspects of the ensemble cheaply ineffective, creating a consistency of investment speed-bumps that feel more problematic the further the camera focuses on their likenesses, which if it wasn’t for some on the nose dialogue involving their names frequently being pitched, I would’ve never known who I was starring at.

– Arduously slow. Repetition is this movie’s worst enemy. I say that because the dormant nature of the first half, combined with the rampant improvement of the better second half, creates an inconsistency for pacing that led to more than a few dry spots of diminishing interest for my experience. This will inevitably be most important to whether the audience can find an attachment to this film, as the story’s minimal expansion offers very little depth to attach itself to, in the way of appealing momentum. It does make 106 minutes of screen time an occasional chore to sift through on the way to more than a few slow spots that could certainly cut to the chase in order to salvage the eyes and ears of the audience decreasing with arid dryness.

– Metaphor overload. If done once or twice, metaphorical representation can illustrate a creativity and beckoning psychology within the boundaries of the film that creates room for healthy interpretation. Unfortunately, if done too much, as such is the case with this movie, it can overkill it to the point where its intentions grow more obvious with each passing instance. Examples include an introduction to Diana, in which she literally conveys that she’s lost and out of time to find her destination. Something that could easily be innocent enough, but made obvious when you consider what follows. From there, a conversation with her kids solidifies the sentiment that the past and present are the same, and in this life there is no future. A line of dialogue so ruthlessly self-deprecating that it conjured more than a few groans in my auditorium, with one of which coming shamelessly from yours truly. Finally, the coldness of the mansion is mentioned by Diana and her kids around ten times throughout the film, aiming to articulate the loveless, emotionless canvas of the family themselves, but instead grasps at straws to audibly complain about the conditions, to which no one is ever able to change.

My Grade: 7/10 of B-