Spencer (2021)

[Brn2bwild]

I watched Spencer with Kristen Stewart last night on Amazon Prime.  The word I would use to describe it is "intriguing."  Kristen Stewart's Diana doesn't quite evoke the real Diana (the one revealed through interviews, at least), but she plays the hell out of that character.  It was as if Diana were trapped in a haunted house where she couldn't tell real from illusion, and she were constantly being watched by unseen, powerful forces (she was).  The scene with the pearls at dinner was the most disturbing one.  I could see her reaching that state of misery with the Royal Family, but I wonder if the real Diana would have quite so easily lost her grip on reality.  

Just a quibble: I think her more accurate counterpart would not have been Anne Boleyn, but Catherine of Aragon.  The young women who dutifully married the prince and gave him an heir, only to be tossed aside in favor of a manipulative schemer (as some contemporaries claimed Anne Boleyn was). 

[lasu]

I...didn't love it.  I was bummed, because I was really pulling for K-Stew, but it didn't work for me.  If you went into this without knowing much about Princess Di and her story (like if you tried to take this as a standalone movie in and of itself), I don't think this movie would make ANY sense.  I think you have to come to the table with a pre-disposed sympathy towards Princess Di.

[LadyIrony]

Saw it last night and wondered what the point of it all was. It didn't provide any new insights or revelations. It was like a boring telemovie about a woman and her sons and mental illness. The scenes depicting her descent into depression/madness were overly done. I didn't know anything about the film really before watching it but expected more from it. 

I don't think Stewart did a very good job, she almost comes across as a porn star in the first scene where she walks into the cafe. The way she behaves. The actor playing Charles pulled it off mannerism wise but I think they could have done more to make him look similar to the real Chuck. 

I feel like there weren't any heroes in this film, everyone comes off looking bad. I think they tried too hard to make the Royals look inhuman and Diana was hardly a pauper off the streets, she would have had some insights to what she was getting involved with.

Edited December 14, 2021 by LadyIrony

[kiddo82]

I think this would have been better if it was about a fictional woman and a fictional family.  I have to admit that I don't know a lot about the behind scenes drama of the royals but there has to be a lot of license taken here, especially with the fantasy scenes.  This whole movie in fact reads like a historical fantasy.  I don't inherently have a problem with that except that the name Diana Spencer evokes a lot of emotions for a lot of people and it just seems as if it is being used to be emotionally manipulative in this case.  I don't need a straight objective biopic either.  I just feel like there is some middle ground that is missing.

 

Kristen Stewart was very good but I think my judgement was clouded by hearing about the 48 minute standing ovation she reportedly got in Venice.  (I may be slightly exaggerating the duration.)  In fairness to her, hearing those reports always kind of bugs me because it feels very "prisoner of the moment."  I wish I knew nothing of the performance going in because I was already set up to want to say, "It wasn't that good."

Edited December 15, 2021 by kiddo82

[AngieBee1]

I loved Pablo Larrain's JACKIE and think, overall,  Steven Knight is a hack writer so I was ready to either be bowled over or turned off by this. It was compelling and the heavy-handed comparison to Anne Boleyn and the fever dreams aspect of the film kept it from being dreary. I didn't like Stewart's portrayal because I have seen enough Kristen Stewart films to notice her acting ticks. She is incapable IMO of truly becoming a character. I was more impressed by Timothy Spall and Sean Harris. I think the film would have soared with another actress in the role.

[Spartan Girl]

Rented it tonight, and wow. It’s like the filmmakers said “Let’s do The Crown, but duller and more depressing.” I’ll give it to Kristen Stewart for trying, but Jackie was a far better movie because it didn’t make its subject matter look like she was completely losing it.

The food and the outfits looked great though. I would totally sneak in the kitchen to get some of that.

On 12/5/2021 at 5:04 PM, Brn2bwild said:

Just a quibble: I think her more accurate counterpart would not have been Anne Boleyn, but Catherine of Aragon.  The young women who dutifully married the prince and gave him an heir, only to be tossed aside in favor of a manipulative schemer (as some contemporaries claimed Anne Boleyn was).

That’s what I thought too. The Anne Boleyn parallels were overreaching.

[LadyIrony]

On 12/15/2021 at 10:43 AM, kiddo82 said:

I think this would have been better if it was about a fictional woman and a fictional family.  I have to admit that I don't know a lot about the behind scenes drama of the royals but there has to be a lot of license taken here, especially with the fantasy scenes.  This whole movie in fact reads like a historical fantasy.  I don't inherently have a problem with that except that the name Diana Spencer evokes a lot of emotions for a lot of people and it just seems as if it is being used to be emotionally manipulative in this case.  I don't need a straight objective biopic either.  I just feel like there is some middle ground that is missing.

 

On 12/15/2021 at 12:42 PM, AngieBee1 said:

I loved Pablo Larrain's JACKIE and think, overall,  Steven Knight is a hack writer so I was ready to either be bowled over or turned off by this. It was compelling and the heavy-handed comparison to Anne Boleyn and the fever dreams aspect of the film kept it from being dreary. I didn't like Stewart's portrayal because I have seen enough Kristen Stewart films to notice her acting ticks. She is incapable IMO of truly becoming a character. I was more impressed by Timothy Spall and Sean Harris. I think the film would have soared with another actress in the role.

 

Given Diana was so loved by the masses it is a shame that they chose an actress who (not only isn't British) but also known for her one dimensional performances. She just doesn't didn't portray Diana in my opinion as likable at all. This could be because I am neither a Stewart or Lady Di fan but I just didn't feel anything for her from this film. I agree that Spall was great and as always has a warmth about him and Sean Harris was also good and much more sympathetic than Diana/Stewart. 

[AllyB]

On 12/28/2021 at 1:04 AM, Spartan Girl said:

The Anne Boleyn parallels were overreaching.

I haven't seen it but could the parallels have been because Anne Boleyn was Diana's great, great, ever so many greats, aunt? The Spencers being direct descendants of Mary Boleyn. 

[SlovakPrincess]

I had my doubts about Kristen Stewart in this role, but I found myself thinking "oh, ok, they do have a lot of the same mannerisms!" I'll leave it to the Brits to really weigh in on the accent, but it seemed ok to me.  I thought she did really well in the role!   I especially thought she did well in her scenes with the kids, conveying Diana's connection with her boys.

By 30 minutes in, I found myself muttering "fuck off, leave her alone!" every time someone knocked on her door.   That would be incredibly frustrating.

The movie really is a whole mood, and I agree with those commenting you have to know Diana's story for this to make sense.  You're either into a very pretty, very trippy movie about a woman slowly losing her mind and sense of identity over a stifling, royal Christmas week ... or you're  not.  I enjoyed it, but can see it being a big "huh??" for a lot of people.  

Edited February 10, 2022 by SlovakPrincess

[SunnyBeBe]

I don’t care for Stuart and I’ve never been a Diana fan either…..so, any chance I’d enjoy this movie?  I’ve watched a trailer and I really don’t think it’s for me.  

[LadyIrony]

45 minutes ago, SunnyBeBe said:

I don’t care for Stuart and I’ve never been a Diana fan either…..so, any chance I’d enjoy this movie?  I’ve watched a trailer and I really don’t think it’s for me.  

I didn't like the film. I am not a Diana or Royal fan but I do have a curiosity all the same. Usually I can enjoy Royal family films but this one was just really depressing and a mess in my opinion. 

[Simon Boccanegra]

I'd put this one in the "interesting failure" category. I have read the screenplay, and it really isn't much on the page. It's a movie that works or doesn't work based on atmosphere, visual style, sets and costumes, music, acting, and a viewer's level of interest in these real people of recent history. It's skillfully directed, and I liked most of what the actors did, but the combination of surreal touches (including the Anne Boleyn ghost imagery) and banal tabloid psychology doesn't connect, in my opinion. Princess Diana has always inspired ambivalence in me, and this version of her grows tiresome. 

I hadn't seen Timothy Spall in a movie in several years (since he played JMW Turner for Mike Leigh), and he's so thin now. I was relieved to read afterward that it was intentional and health-related. As a veteran character actor whose lane was "heavy English guy," he was concerned the roles might dry up, but that hasn't happened. He plays an invented antagonist for Diana on the royal staff and is excellent as always.

Edited February 20, 2022 by Simon Boccanegra

[Pickles Aplenty]

Okay, I'm a You're Wrong About fan who absolutely loves Michael Hobbes's deep dive on Princess Diana and has listened to it several times, so I feel like I was a bit more prepared than others might be when it comes to the overall tone of this movie.  BUT, I really didn't like it much.  It seems like the filmmakers wanted to tell a story about a beautiful princess who slowly goes insane and used Diana to tell that story.  The appearance of Anne Boleyn's ghost was what really made me turn on the movie and give up on it.  A much more apt comparison to Diana would be Georgiana of Cavendish, but the audience is much more familiar with Anne Boleyn, so they had to use her.  All righty, then.

I will say that I thought Kristen Stewart did a good job with the material she was given.  Not a great job, but a good job.  I don't think it was Oscar-worthy, but I am one of those people who believes Stewart gets a bum rap in terms of her acting ability, so I have to give her credit for giving the role her all.  I'm not sure why she had to whisper nearly every single one of her lines, though.  That was annoying.

A couple more things before I leave this film in the past: why the HELL would Althorp be condemned and boarded up?  The Spencers have lived there for five centuries and counting.  I know they say this movie is "a fable based on a true tragedy" but that was puzzling, to me.  Oh, and Kristen Stewart could actually play a convincing Anne Boleyn, IMO.  When we had that flash of her in the costume, I thought they cast her as the wrong royal.  She would have rocked as Anne.  She has the right look, and she can pull off that steely ambition Anne had.  What a missed opportunity.

Edited February 21, 2022 by Pickles Aplenty

[Simon Boccanegra]

19 hours ago, Pickles Aplenty said:

I'm not sure why she had to whisper nearly every single one of her lines, though.  That was annoying.

There were scenes in the first half -- I especially remember one involving Stewart and Sally Hawkins -- in which I was getting maybe a third of what was said. I thought maybe it was the sound system of the theater in which I saw it, but then I read several reviews that mentioned all the barely audible dialogue. So I gave the screenplay a read-through to make sure I wasn't missing any writing that would bring the movie up a point or two. (It was either that or pay to stream it with the closed captions, and I didn't find it that intriguing.) 

[blackwing]

I thought it was abysmal and I had to bail early on.  I am not a fan of Kristen Stewart.  I found her mannerisms irritating.  I hated the way she talked with that rushed breathy voice... did Diana really talk and act like that?  It felt to me almost like Stewart was doing a caricature of how she thought Diana sounded.  I've seen many interviews of Diana and I don't think she sounded like that.  I get that Stewart was portraying Diana as manic depressive but it didn't ring true for me.

Admittedly, I didn't make it very far into the movie.  I had to quit when she saw Anne Boleyn and fake imagined herself vomitting pearls into her soup and then eating them.  Ugh.

I am surprised she got an Oscar nomination for this, but who knows anymore how and why the Academy does the things they do.  At this point I wouldn't be surprised if she won.  

[Helena Dax]

The Crown, but directed by Lars Von Trier.

[Frost]

I just watched this.  Was it supposed to be sympathetic to Diana?  I thought she came across as spoiled and with real emotional problems.  I know it was labeled as a "fable" but most of it just seemed ridiculous.  The idea that dinner was eaten in complete silence?   By all accounts, in private the Queen is warm and funny.  Family meals, even surrounded by servants, were probably just as chatty as any other.  Sewing incredibly expensive damask curtains shut with wire as a metaphor for Charles trying to trap Diana in darkness was so heavy handed.  Also, Park House was not boarded up and left to rot.  It turned into a home for retired servicemen or something.  I don't know, the whole tone just seemed off.  What was the movie trying to say?

I personally couldn't stand being surrounded by servants all day, every day, but that was the world Diana grew up in.  I remember an interview with a Park House servant when the engagement happened and he/she commented that Diana "ironed her own jeans."  I guess ironing her jeans instead of handing them to a waiting servant is supposed to make Diana just like the common folk?

On the other hand, Kristen Stewart did an excellent job with Diana's voice and her mannerisms were pretty good.  If only the movie wasn't so melodramatic.