FILM: Diana

Diana came out quite some time ago, and although I wanted to watch it then, I wasn’t desperate enough that I was going to spend money on it. I wanted to learn more about Diana, Princess of Wales and why she was such a revered, yet controversial figure, and although the film seemed like an easy way to learn about her life, I never got around to watching it the first time. However, the opportunity arose on a flight from London to Brisbane where the film was available for free via the in-flight entertainment system.

So, Princess Diana. It’s almost surprising how such a figure can make such a medicore film, but there you have it. Diana is hardly more than a below average romantic drama film; almost entirely run-of-the-mill and, not quite as surprisingly as I might have imagined, rather boring as well. The only aspect which could feasibly have put it on the radar is who the titular character happens to be - namely, the estranged member of the British Royal Family and human rights advocate.

If the aim of this film was to portray Princess Diana sympathetically, then let it be said that it failed quite miserably. The amount of screentime dedicated to her love affair with some Pakistani surgeon is perhaps symbolic of how much it occupied her mind. In this film, she is naïve, self-absorbed, vain, and takes every opportunity to turn any conversation to focus on her own self-pity. Whether or not Ms Diana’s character was consistent with this particular depiction is not my place to say, although frankly I can think of no other reason this film could have, or should have, been made other than historical accuracy (discounting, of course, money). 

On reflection, it seems pretty clear how the film wants to portray Diana, with the epilogue before the credits outlining her accomplishments regarding the reduction in landmine casualties since her death, and the diplomatic milestones to which she allegedly contributed. This is, of course, despite the fact that it least ninety percent of the film’s runtime has little to do with either of these subjects whatsoever. Much of the film merely documents her affair with the aforementioned Pakistani surgeon, and her struggles with the press and paparazzi “journalism”. How tragic it must be to be rich and famous solely for being rich and famous.

Interestingly, and despite the over simplistic, contrived and pseudo-poetic writing, Diana does raise some very notable points about the fallacies of monarchism, aside from the obvious pitfall of hereditary power and authority. In general, Diana is a woman unwillingly born into royalty and who clearly doesn’t want a royal lifestyle (although certainly doesn’t shy away from reaping the benefits), trying to build a semblance of a normal life. This is where one must spare a thought for the Royal family, because being tautologically rich and famous can be understandably unpleasant - I for one would not wish for such a life.

Diana’s Pakistani lover brings up a most potent point around the halfway mark of the film, which I can paraphrase as: “I worked hard to get where I am today; you have just been handed everything”. Indeed, one thing lost when raised as though the world belongs to you is a clear sense of perspective, hence also the self-indulgence and vanity of Ms Diana. It is clear that Diana does not fully understand the honor and respectableness of actually accomplishing something through persistent dedication and hard work. It is additionally clear she has a limited understanding of world issues and global politics, and in reality she is more concerned with her own angst. She even “forgot” about the importance of saving lives in one conversation - evidently, her charitable humanitarianism was little more than an afterthought.

But what exactly did Princess Diana accomplish in her lifetime? Solving humanitarian crises? I have a hunch (admittedly not more than a hunch) such processes would have worked fine without the diplomatic advice of a rich vanity-queen. Did she succeed in supporting innocent victims of war and violence? Perhaps, if these people seriously took solace in the mere sympathy from one of the most ridiculously over-privileged people in the world. Moreover, I am certain that countless others have done the same for these people - and more - and receive little-to-no recognition for it because they aren’t related to Elizabeth. Did she at least take the time to research and understand the issues she was supposedly passionate about? Perhaps - there were vague hints in the film of some development in this regard; however it was hardly elaborated on and wasn’t even slightly convincing in any case. Did she, as some claim, use her position of wealth and power as a pedestal to raise awareness and concern among the public about these humanitarian crises in order to mobilise action on a larger scale? Maybe.

However, I don’t even think she got that far. No, what she did manage was to create a massive, fanatical personality cult around herself, wherein she was a selfless, charitable and loving person who could do no wrong. She didn’t inspire people to get concerned and take action on violence and cruelty around the world - because in their eyes Diana had already done that for them.

I have no more distain for Princess Diana than I do for any other member of any royalty. What I do take issue with, however, is her personality cult, and the mindless devotion to her reverence. And this brings me to another issue with the British Monarchy: there are people all over the world engaging in humanitarian relief without an expectation of reward or vindication, including those in military operations. Yet someone who, more-or-less on a whim, decides to embark on a righteous crusade is given a near-messianic treatment because she happens to be born into - not just any over-privileged family - but the right over-privileged family.

Having been less than three when she did and therefore having never2 met her personally, I cannot know how much of this film portrayal of Princess Diana is accurate. Regardless, in this case she makes for an unsympathetic, dull, self-absorbed and unlikeable character, giving rise to a generally boring and unremarkable film.