In Defense of 'Diana'

After the countless reviews of this film stating it as the cinematic equivalent of the Holocaust, I went to the cinema to see the film not expecting much from this biopic from Oliver Hirschbiegel. The comments on it being distasteful, tarring the Princess's image and being flat out crap were all things I had read beforehand and as it is when you read the same thing over and over again, I became to suspect that I would have the same opinion as the critics and film goers who have slated this film online. I suspected wrong.

Diana tells of Princess Diana (link here, please read, very important, etc) and her life after her divorce from Prince Charles in the 1990s. Focusing on her constant battle with the British media, her clandestine relationship with a heart surgeon and eventually her public relationship with Dodi Fayed, this dramatic portrayal of the Princess of Wales' life creeps behind the guarded gates of her home in London and into her extremely unfortunate and unfair life after her break up with a member of the Royal family. As with all films regarding members of royalty, elements of fiction have been added alongside factual dates and events, increasing drama and allowing viewers to feel close to the isolated and lonely 'Most Famous Woman in the World'. I think, however, it is the addition of these fictional scenes and events that has critics and moviegoers confused.

People are taking this film as if it has been marketed as the official secret life of Princess Diana, when in reality, it is a piece of dramatic fictional work. Comments have included insults such as 'Naomi Watts doesn't even look like Diana', which, I think, says everything about the mindset that a lot of people, the majority it seems, went into this film in. If you were focussing on the lack of visual similarities between two unrelated people, then a) go back to biology class and b) read the definition of a biographical piece of cinema, revise it, then re-watch the film. There seems to be a certain attachment with the Great British public and Princess Diana that is unbreakable. People's minds are unwilling to accept a fictional piece of film and get caught up in becoming offended by a director's attempts at making a connection with the audience and evoking a state of empathy. When you take a film such as Lincoln, a film that was widely renowned to be historically inaccurate and altogether a little bit talky, if you ask me, and look at the amount of praise it got from critics all over the world, it seems almost like a barrier is put up around such films as this Diana and people immaturely refuse to suspend their disbelief in a state of defiance.

Disregarding all of the nonsense criticism I have read regarding the film, my fears for it were that as a relatively short biopic, it was going to be lengthy. There is a lot of Diana's life that is interesting and focusing on only the last two years was a brilliant way of both cutting down what would have been an extremely long running time, and also allowing those who perhaps don't know the ins and outs of Princess Diana's very public relationship with Prince Charles, to show as little judgement as possible. The rumours of the film being distasteful were also something that I thought were going to be true, and I thought this would be in regards to the death scene that was inevitable going to happen, however, to my surprise the death scene was cut out completely. This lack of showing what could have turned out be an extremely offensive and uncomfortable piece of film shows pure taste in my opinion. We all know what happened to Diana in real life, we have all seen the pictures and read the articles, Hirschbiegel has tactfully left out a scene that would have cause general offense to a lot of people, and I give him props to that, he managed to achieve his emotional scenes through skilful camera work and script writing.

The film is captivating throughout, a beautifully tragic story of love, heartbreak and tragedy, we are taken on a journey of a variety of emotions. Perhaps though, for me, the most important thing I took away from my viewing of this film is to never let a critic, or in this case a lot of critics, tell you how to feel about a movie. The beautiful thing about film is that it is subjective, the most captivating film to some will be the biggest snooze-fest ever to others, believe me, if there is anything I have learnt whilst studying for a degree in film it is that it is rare for you to find people who have the exact same film taste as yourself. Let films take you somewhere, don't hold back because of other people's opinions, and you will find yourself much more aware of what you actually enjoy and a lot more open to the film world.

Roman Holiday Review

A princess living the 'dream' life, travelling Europe, living in luxury and mingling with the highest aristocracy gets bored of the monotonous days of her life and decides to run away. With sleep-inducing drugs in her system, she runs away into the city of Rome. Finding a fast asleep Princess Ann on the side of a street, Joe Bradley, a journalist, mistakes her for a drunk and being the ever so kind gentleman that only Gregory Peck could play, decides to take her to his apartment for her own safety.
The morning after, Bradley finds out that the 'drunk' he took home was in fact the Princess, and makes a deal with the editor of his newspaper to secretly photograph and write about the Princess, unknown to her, and expose the side of her that the public never see. What follows is 24 hours in Rome, a holiday for the Princess and a working day out for Bradley, however when both the Princess and Bradley fall for each other, the lines between work and pleasure are blurred.

For me, the most interesting feature of this film is the character of Princess Ann, played beautifully by Audrey Hepburn. In the 1950s, a Princess' personal life was strictly off limits to members of the public, they were presented as representatives of their family and only that. Opening up the character of a wealthy princess who is usually secluded and showing her to have human emotions and characteristics is an interesting thing to watch, with her lack of perspective of the 'real' world being both comical and saddening to watch. We feel strongly connected to Hepburn's character, from the beginning, her not knowing the value of money and walking awkwardly through a street market, to the end, allowing herself to loosen up and kiss the man she loves, we watch her grow from an almost parental perspective and the development is satisfying to the viewer.

In between the beginning and the end of the film, our attachment towards the character's grows and the dramatic tension builds up at a steady pace as the cuts back to the Embassy are shown and we realise that people are looking for the Princess. With the natural chemistry between Peck and Hepburn, the romance is entirely believable to the point of over investment by the likes of myself, with the question of whether of not Bradley is going to submit the story being right at the front of my mind for the majority of the film, however, as with all good romantic comedies, everything runs smoothly in the end.

The film's ending of both of the characters going back to reality is what completes it, in my opinion. The impression is given that after the two character's whirlwind romance, everything goes back to how it was, allowing the audience to extend their disbelief and perhaps transfer it into the world outside of the diegesis, fantasising about perhaps their country's Royal family and the lives in which they lead outside of the public eye. The comparisons that can be made to Princess Ann and princesses outside of the film are many, and is one of the factors that makes the character of Ann so well remembered in the history of cinema.

The film is simple, well-structured and not too lengthy, with many iconic moments taking place, Roman Holiday is a truly wonderful piece of cinema that can and should be enjoyed by everyone.