“Spencer” Reinvents the Image of Princess Diana

“Spencer” exposes the vulnerabilities of Princess Diana through a fictional retelling of her stay at the Sandringham Estate

It’s December 1991 at the Sandringham Estate in Norfolk. The Christmas holidays are arriving, and all members of the royal family are to be joined at the estate. Despite the joyous occasion, the celebratory days are not as satisfactory as usual — rumors of Prince Charles’ affair with Parker Camille Bowles and his divorce from Diana are on the rise.

The three-day event at the Sandringham Estate is what the director, Pablo Larraín, chooses to focus on in “Spencer.” The film is baked with mixings of truth and fiction from the life of the late Princess Diana. There may be some adherence to factual traditions of the royal family, the marriage breakdown of Prince Charles and Princess Diana and the royal family’s discontent with Princess Diana, but the similarities stop there.

Larraín has not shied away from directing biographical films in the past. For instance, his previous film, “Jackie” was based on Jackie Kennedy’s life after the assassination of her husband. One could see “Spencer” as a companion piece to “Jackie,” with both films highlighting the vulnerabilities of women basked in the limelight by their husbands.

Although “Jackie” chooses to focus on a culturally significant moment within Jackie Kennedy’s life, “Spencer” chooses to take things in an alternative direction. Rather than focusing on the princess’ wedding in 1981, her separation from Charles in 1992, her divorce in 1996 or the events leading to her death in 1997, the film focuses on a precarious timeline: a reinterpretation of her life in 1991.

With the many adaptations of Princess Diana such as “Diana” and “The Crown” many would assume that another adaptation would not be necessary. However, both films do not do justice to the life of the princess.

“Diana” fails to articulate the complexities of the princess, and “The Crown” primarily focuses on the political dynamics of the royal family (which only touches the surface of the princess’ vulnerabilities).

Princess Diana hasn’t had enough screen time to allow audiences to truly understand the complexities behind her image.

Does “Spencer” accomplish what it sets out to do?

The film’s title, “Spencer,” seems unusual, but it references Princess Diana’s maiden name. Through the title alone, audience members understand this movie as a reclamation of the late princess’ life and honor.

From the film’s introduction, it whines in with murderous music arrangement. The music is so shocking that one might mistake it to be a horror film. The music, composed by Johnny Greenwood of Radiohead, bleeds into haunting territory which foreshadows the princess’ bloodcurdling stay at the Sandringham Estate.

Kristen Stewart may seem like an unconventional choice to play the princess. However, she easily camouflages into the role through her intonations cock-eyed neck turns and delicate bodily movements. It is not easy for an actress to don the role of a famous figure when there are so many liabilities at stake such as the inability to assume the role of someone that already exists and disgracing the honor of the figure.

Instead, Stewart provides a multifaceted glance at the princess: a figure consumed with doubts of trust, a mother with a deep love for her children, a woman who’s been ridiculed by the royal family and press and a wife abandoned by her husband. Stewart’s performance reeks of a woman so desperate for pure companionship and riddled with bouts of loneliness that watchers may be deluded into holding out their hand for her.

While the film is labeled as a biographical film, it emphasizes the gap between her cultural image and her personal life through its utilization of many dream-like sequences that deviate from the realities of the princess’ life. The hallucinations add to her exaggerated inner thoughts and feelings.

In one aspect, her delusions carry into her seeing the late Anne Boleyn with Princess Diana often drifting into hallways and corridors trying to understand this ghostly presence. There is much to be deciphered and discussed about the similarities relating to both Princess Diana and Anne Boleyn with both women being casualties of the royal monarchy and the patriarchy.

Her delusions often break away from the reality that it may be hard for audiences to recognize the exploitation posed by the royal family to be valid. The film assumes the position that the horrific incidents posed against her are self-concocted rather than a delirious mental state motivated by royal family’s oppression.

As the aspect of Princess Diana’s mental health has been missing from many adaptations of her life, this film inverts those missed interpretations by heightening her physiological experiences.

On the other hand, the film captures the cultural feeling of Diana through her fashion. For much of Diana’s life, she has transformed the image of princesses around her and imbued the independence and confidence of her role through her fashion sense alone. Thus, it is important that such a film would highlight those moments and it does just so.

From the outside, the princess often dons colorful drips that separate her from the muddled outdated clothing of the royal family. During her stay at the estate, she wears a blood-dipped mink coat, a matching canary yellow blazer with sailor hat and a white tulle dress with decorated beads and crystals.

There is also a political scheme devised with her clothing. In one instance, she chooses to adorn her clothes in mismatched order, causing some contention between the royal workers and family.

Her fashion rebellion says so much with so little: she cannot be controlled.

There is much working against and for this biblio-fictional film, but do not be misled into believing that the film follows an actual account of Princess Diana. It is disingenuous to even recognize this as a biography.

However, no documentary, autobiography or biography can truly capture the authenticity of people. What the film does is to instill a sympathetic interpretation of a woman that once was, but that woman is gone.